E Morán1, A Budía, E Broseta, F Boronat. 1. Servicio de Urología, Hospital Universitario y Politécnico La Fe, Valencia, España. edumoran@comv.es
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the usefulness of phytotherapy in the treatment of the benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) and prostatic adenocarcinoma (ADCP). ACQUISITION OF EVIDENCE: Systematic review of the evidence published until January 2011 using the following scientific terms: phytotherapy, benign prostate hyperplasia, prostatic adenocarcinoma, prostate cancer and the scientific names of compounds following the rules of the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature. The databases used were Medline and The Cochrane Library. We included articles published until January 2011 written in English and Spanish. We included studies in vitro/in vivo on animal models or human beings. Exclusion criteria were literature not in English and Spanish or articles with serious methodological flaws. SYNTHESIS OF THE EVIDENCE: We included 65 articles of which 40 met the inclusion criteria. BPH: the most studied products are serenoa repens and pygeum africanum. There are many studies in favour of the use of phytotherapy but its conclusions are inconsistent due to the small number of patients, the lack of control with placebo or short follow-up. However the use of these products is common in our environment. ADCP: there is no evidence to recommend phytotherapy in the treatment of the ADCP. There are works on prevention but only at experimental level so there is no evidence for its recommendation. CONCLUSIONS: The scientific evidence on the use of phytotherapy in prostatic pathology is conclusive not recommend ing the use of it for BPH or the ADCP.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the usefulness of phytotherapy in the treatment of the benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) and prostatic adenocarcinoma (ADCP). ACQUISITION OF EVIDENCE: Systematic review of the evidence published until January 2011 using the following scientific terms: phytotherapy, benign prostate hyperplasia, prostatic adenocarcinoma, prostate cancer and the scientific names of compounds following the rules of the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature. The databases used were Medline and The Cochrane Library. We included articles published until January 2011 written in English and Spanish. We included studies in vitro/in vivo on animal models or human beings. Exclusion criteria were literature not in English and Spanish or articles with serious methodological flaws. SYNTHESIS OF THE EVIDENCE: We included 65 articles of which 40 met the inclusion criteria. BPH: the most studied products are serenoa repens and pygeum africanum. There are many studies in favour of the use of phytotherapy but its conclusions are inconsistent due to the small number of patients, the lack of control with placebo or short follow-up. However the use of these products is common in our environment. ADCP: there is no evidence to recommend phytotherapy in the treatment of the ADCP. There are works on prevention but only at experimental level so there is no evidence for its recommendation. CONCLUSIONS: The scientific evidence on the use of phytotherapy in prostatic pathology is conclusive not recommend ing the use of it for BPH or the ADCP.